BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Guest #.....an interesting and intriguing post, why cant more members look at things a little more deeply.....all the best...A

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:38 AM

And why, if that really is Keith, are you not logged in?

I know about faith. My Grandfather was a priest and my Dad was deeply religious until the day he died. I went to a faith school from 1957 until 1969. I was an altar boy, first in the Russian Orthodox church and then the Catholic church. I studied the bible and other christian texts as part of my higher education. I know that the whole basis for christianity is that Jesus was the son of god, sent down to absolve us of original sin that was put there by his dad in the first place. All these things are in the bible and it is no good saying the old testament does not count, as it is the basis for the new.

So, tell us then, either trolling guest or Keith if that really is you. How do you decide which bits of the bible are true and which bits are not?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:36 AM

I've been an agnostic / rational / humanist since my teens.
I'm happy enough to lead a life of benign indifference
- I don't care what other folks worship
as long as they don't try to impose their control on me
or the institutions and laws that regulate our shared culture & society...

If a scientist can positively reconcile a faith in a god
with such an intellectually vigorously demanding chosen professional vocation
- well that's a fair compromise innit ...???

But any person of extreme faith who denies the value of science
with venomous hostility - what an ignorant dangerous pillock !!!

there.. surely those are easy enough ideas to live with.....

Now off to plug a guitar into a fuzz box and amp and rock away an hour
before the mrs gets back from the shops....


.. and as for Jeremy Clarkson, I really don't care if he definitely does exist
or is not just a construct of any tenuous grasp on reality...??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith.
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Pete and I disagree, but why would we burn each other?
Intelligent, tolerant people do not behave like that.

The headline for the main leader in New Scientist this week,

"Thank god for civilisation
The idea that religion led to modernity is gaining strength"

Dave, I decline to explain my faith to you.
If you really wanted to know about Christianity, the answers are very easy to find.
You are just looking for ammunition to use in your mocking and ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

"but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, ..."

What is it with you and consensus, pete?

Imagine you've been accused of [insert crime] and been tried in a court of law for it. The jury has reached its verdict and the judge sums up:

Judge: "Peter Seven Stars, you have been found guilty of [insert crime] and I will now pass sentence. Now I know that eleven jurors decided that you were innocent - but we all know that consensus is bollocks, don't we? The twelth juror, though, thought that you were guilty as hell and as I like the cut of his jib and he's wearing a blue jumper - my favourite colour is blue - I'll go with what he thinks. I hereby sentence you to 10 years in jail without remission. Take him down!"

You wouldn't like that, would you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:36 AM

Oooh - Do I see the start of a religious war? ars believes the bible is true while Keith says it is not so but still believes in god and that JC was his son? Who will be first to burn the other as a heretic I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

". . . everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Prima facie that looks to be true, but it's a tough one to prove, Pete. We make the assumption that there is a cause, but how can that be demonstrated? I suppose that eventually every interaction that transpires has a cause and a cause before that, etc, but at what point in the interactions does God/god/G-d enter the equation? And what is god? If god is the ignition switch then god's job is finished once the motor starts running. It often boils down to the questions of riddle and paradox. Can god devise a question he is unable to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

The other contender for Clarkson's ex-job is, apparently, Chris Evans. Oh dear! 😳

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Again, that's just an unsupported assertion. You will note that I'm saying in my posts a God who creates everything. As far as I know, that is the usual Christian view of God. If you have a different version of God who doesn't create everything, let's be having it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:42 AM

and I am sure we are not contained to the US bible belt either, gillymoor. and I don't suppose keith is lieing but probably mistaken, perhaps taking a more parochial/c of e view than global. but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, as the most have often been wrong before, but persisted in their error for a long time.
steve, there is a longer definition, but since you wanted what I understand by it in 3 lines
begin with your ideas, howsoever arrived at.
test and test again...ie observable, repeatable,
treat as confirmed till such time as demonstrated otherwise.
btw, you say ...selection isn't evolution... as far as I got in origins, it seemed Darwin thought so ? or at least his proposed mechanism ?.
shimrod, when I say the bible accords more with science, I do not so on the flimsy base of consensus.....that is what you do for origins !.
examples.....the bible predicts organisms reproducing after their kind, ie the horse kind , cat kind. mankind, etc. this is observable and repeatable. Darwinism speculates otherwise but never demonstrated it. the bible posits a creator, ie everything that has a beginning must have a cause. evolutionism says everything from, nothing via no one. your , who created God is a non starter because I don't believe in a god that needed to be created. and I would appreciate you laying off the bad lanquage, if you want direct replies, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

Ok - How about in a paragraph or two? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe he was the son of god? Do you believe god sent him to earth to rid of of our sins? Simple things like that. If so, where did those beliefs come from?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Dave, I can not put it in a nutshell for you.
Sorry.

Steve,
Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept.
Agreed.
Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

" As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know."

Sorry, that's ambiguous. As a scientist I don't accept that, just because there may be things we will never know, we should stop investigating stuff. Phew.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:56 AM

"Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways."

Pointing out the inconsistencies in a person's world view is NOT telling them that they are wrong nor is it telling them that they HAVE to recognise anything! There is no element of compulsion! The fact that, when their world view is questioned, theists often agressively claim that they being subjected to some form of compulsion suggests to me that they may be insecure in their beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, everyone is free to believe anything they like - until, that is, if those beliefs are irrational, they try to impose them on others - particularly children.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Whatever, Brendan. All I try to do is express what I'm thinking. I see others using careless language here and I have no desire to emulate them.

There is nothing in Christian thinking, as far as I know, that prohibits intellectual grappling. If you see a paradox, you should be asking yourself whether it's a paradox because of incomplete understanding, in which case let's delve more, or whether it's merely an apparent paradox because we're in denial, in which case let's ditch the baggage of preconceptions and take the thing on with ruthless honesty. In the case in point, I've argued that the process of evolution is entirely incompatible with the concept of a creator of everything and I've given my reasons for thinking that. In my opinion, the only possible reconciliation could be achieved either by rewriting God or rewriting evolutionary theory. I'm not up for that and I suspect neither are you. As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know. I suspect that God, having given us mighty brains, would agree with that. By the way, very little that I read on this forum ever enrages me, honest.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM

Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

So, in a nutshell, what is the basis of christian belief?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:23 AM

Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept. And selection isn't evolution. You have not addressed the crux of the matter, that evolution and a creator of everything cannot sit alongside each other.

Interesting point about historians, Dave. As the gospel writers whose gospels we accept for biblical use (there are others...) didn't actually know Jesus and were writing many years after his death, they were, de facto, historians. But they're dead.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:15 AM

Steve Shaw, the problem that hampers your understanding of people who accept the findings of science, such as evolution, and are still able to be theists is that you do not understand the nature of belief.
Everyone who believes in a deity either lives with a parodox (possibly several) or adopts a fundamentalist position whereby they deny what is obviously true. Focussing on the former, it is possible to accept paradoxes by recognising that there are things that one does not know, cannot know and will never know. This position seems to enrage (or irritate or confuse or whatever) those who pride themselves on being entirely rational.
There is more than one way of being fundamentalist. Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways.
(By the way, the hubris and arrogance you demonstrated in a previous post in which you suggested that I might need, want or require your approbation was truly breathtaking.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:06 AM

In my neck of the woods (the American south and southwest, aka The Bible Belt) there are plenty of folk who will assure you that the bible is a historical, factual document.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:49 AM

It's going around on FB that the new favourite for the vacant 'Top Gear' job is Guy Martin, who is anything but a posh-boy.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all.

Evolution is a process that requires no intelligent control.
That would be artificial selection, which we do.

You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth.

You don't see Dave.
Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:51 AM

Most of the bible is metaphor.

Some people are unable to understand metaphor.

Sometimes the truth requires much thought (Ake....2015)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

I think I have the gist of it, Steve. You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth. But it is not all the truth so someone has to tell them which bits are true and which bits are not. Since it is about things that happened in the past I suppose it is classed as a history book so it must be the historians who tell people what to believe :-)Trouble is, it was written by people who are now dead and their truths have now been superseded by other truths that have come to light because the government now let people have access to more facts. Things like education and science.

What I still don't really get is that if it is now accepted that some bits are not true then, presumably, it cannot have come from god because god cannot inspire people to lie, surely? If it does not come from god it must, therefore, come from men. In the word of someone who's name escapes me, it is made up shit. Now,that makes me think that it would be a good idea to make up a new, better religion but if I remember rightly when someone tried that before some christians went ape-shit and said it was mockery and ridicule. So, if one made up religion is mockery and ridicule why is another one adhered to? Easy. The first one has established itself by force. So, what any new religion needs to do is follow the example of the old one and kill, maim and torture people into submission.

We have a lot of work to do, mate...

What has this got to do with Clarkson? I dunno!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM

"But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, "

What utter bollocks!! The Bible is just another religious text among hundreds of such texts. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Why single out that particular text? I can only think that it's on the basis of concensus among certain members of a once popular - but declining - religious sect. Oh, but I forgot, for some unaccountable reason, 'concensus' is a dirty word for you, isn't it, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:16 PM

Then you are not addressing what I've told you. Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all. You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:04 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:03 PM

So you're telling me that most Christians don't believe that God created everything. Fine!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

I told you that most Christians understand that evolution is a fact.
The Old Testament is an oral tradition thousands of years old.
Of course it is not factual, but it holds many truths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

In three lines, pete, tell us what you understand by "the scientific method".

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM

But ars, most christians do not believe the bible. It must be true because Keith said so and he is a christian and therefore cannot lie.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

Shimrod, I see evades the challenges by inferring that I introduced the evolution topic. He is mistaken, but I plead guilty to rising to the challenge when the usual suspects can't help themselves itching for a fight !.   Stu also evading the challenge of how he proposes to do repeatable science on the long gone past by claiming to be above debating me. Bye for now then , stu ?. At least Steve gets that part of it. All he needs to do now is evidence his evolutionary claims, after admitting these are not subject to the scientific method, as just discussed.    Punkfolkrocker, I suspect you mean 6000 yr ago, but glad you speak highly of a brother Christian. Give him my thumbs up if you think about it ,next time you speak.       Shimrod".....repeatable science on bible....evolutionary....what's the difference..."      The difference, shimrod is that you and stu insisted it could be done on the latter !   But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, and your scientific background don't help you defend your beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

Oisin Tymon is one of the producers on the show, and has been for some years. Clarkson apparently (according to newspaper reports) screamed at him for quite a while because his hot dinner wasn't on the table when he arrived back very late, and then punched him.
Tymon did nothing about it; he turned away and went to the A&E (ER in American) and got himself checked out, as you always should in case of concussion if you have a blow in the face.
Clarkson then tried many times to contact him and apologise, and then went and reported what he had done to his bosses.
He was on his last warning, and so was suspended while there were discussions, and then his contract was terminated.
Oisin Tymon behaved perfectly, doing nothing to make the situation worse, making no report of the assault; he is now refusing to press charges.
It says something about Clarkson's fan base that Tymon is now getting death threats and being mocked on Twitter.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:43 PM

The guy to whom Clarkson gave a knuckle-sandwich has said that he doesn't wish to press for charges.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Well, the thread topic is yesterday's news now, Shimrod. Let's just have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Indeed, Steve ---

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

W B Yeats: Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM

Yes, many posts back silly pete burst on to this thread spouting some claptrap about 'science' (of which he obviously has no understanding whatsoever). His interjections are like the proverbial 'red-rag-to-a-bull' to those of us with a scientific background. I suppose that we should really ignore the ignorant fool but then, perhaps, we have a duty to counter unreason whenever the opportunity presents itself (?) We should really stick to the thread topic though - go away and boil your silly head, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:47 AM

This thread is taking more twists and turns than some of the contributors arguments :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Funnily enough, errrmm.. according to certain internet sites..

A large proportion of young American hetero sexual males now seem to lust after that
as the primary recreational area...???

strange old world....??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

And, worse than that, Michael, God put the recreational area right next to the bloody sewage works!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:11 AM

"...concept of an intelligent driving force" --- esp as it's peculiarly unintelligent. They once, not long since, remember?, tried to con us with the idea of calling their deity by some such cognomen as "Intelligent Designer". Bloody Unintelligent Designer, I always reckoned him/it/whevs. What intelligent designer would have organised the horrors of childbirth the way it is? Always been happy to be exempt from that bit of design --- ppphhheeewww! & as to the boring & often peculiarly inconvenient necessity to keep on having to interrupt whatever one is busy with to piss or shit! If ever I employed someone supposedly to design something for me who couldn't manage better design than those examples, then his bill would go in the bin as soon as he submitted it & he could whistle [or fart!] for his payment!

≈M≈

Still don't know what all this to do with ole Jeremy Wotzit, mind... But liked your suggestion even so, DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:58 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

This post is just a pile of unsupported assertions. At least I did you the honour of explaining my point of view. Now, Keith, it's perfectly clear that whatever understanding you have of evolution is shaky. If you're telling me that your creator God created inanimate matter but has had nothing to do with the origin and evolution of life on Earth, that would be one thing, but it would sound a little as though you were rewriting God. The thing is, you can't even say that God put the stuff in place then let evolution get on with it. The concept of an intelligent driving force involved anywhere in the process is completely at odds with the crucial notions that evolution has no planned trajectory, no goals, no endpoint and no striving (for perfection or otherwise). Tangentially, I suspect that God wouldn't be too happy about the mistakes, the flaws, the evolutionary dead ends and the vast over-production of offspring with its concomitant mass death and disease, essential to evolution. Now you can rewrite God if you like to keep him out of it (please yourself, I'm not bothered), or you can rewrite evolutionary theory (careful now...). But you can't have it both ways. I actually applaud Christians who do want it both ways, because at least they're not brainless fundamentalists like pete, but, sadly, their argument is, er, fundamentally flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

And they are just as deluded as the Christians being berated here! 👍😄

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

Michael - To some, Clarkson IS god!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:57 AM

"It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God."
.,,.

It is a fact that, in this particular, most Christians are excellent personifications of a creation of one of their most distinguished writers, John Bunyan: Mr Face-Both-Ways.

I still don't see by what infractuous ways we got here from a supposed discussion of the egregious Clarkson! Are we ever going to get back to the putative topic of this thread?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:18 AM

"You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices"

Exquisitely ironic!.....congratulations Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:16 AM

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.

Is this most Christians that are alive, eminent, not politically inclined and have been published? Or just most Christians in Hertford?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

If I take "Christian" literally, a follower of Christ, then I suppose it's possible to be a Christian who does not believe in a creator of everything. In my experience, Christians in general do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. This is completely incompatible with evolution. No living organism has ever been created in the religious sense of the term. If you don't get that, Keith, I'm afraid that your understanding of evolutionary theory is just as poor as your understanding of history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:48 AM

I know a christian - my brother in law...

He's an evangelical minister.

He's a very intelligent, decent, witty, keenly sarcastic bloke,
good company on the odd occasions we meet at family gatherings..

yet he believes and preaches we were all created about 4000 years ago..

oh well...

Dunno what he thinks about Jeremy Clarkson though...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:34 AM

But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution,

But we do Steve.
You show your ignorance.
Do you not know any Christians?